@ThreeQuidder Well you, since I deal explicitly with that point later in the thread.
Yes, I read that subsequently.
It still doesn't hold water though: it's only logically consistent if you think a Leave vote makes these people you dislike more likely to be elected than a Remain vote does.
And that only makes sense if you don't trust the good sense of the British electorate.
It's pretty pointless speculating further until the Pensions Regulator has had the chance to look at this properly.
I'll assume the pension scheme has legacy DB elements in it. With a company as large as BHS then the corridor accounting method should have been used (One would hope), and both the fair value of the assets, and the pension benefit obligation assessed at at least annually (And perhaps internally) quarterly reviews.
If the PBO is under the FV by over 10% then the loss to be amortized into the income statement.
My questions are:
Were the corridor or similiar rules followed ? Was the amortisation too lax ? Were the assets valued fairly at each period ? Did the actuaries/accountants all of a sudden notice that people were all ... living longer ?!
The extent of heading from £5 million surplus to ~ £500 million deficit seems extraordinary to me at a time when, unless it was all invested in oil the stock market has been relatively flat, property has at least stayed flat if not risen. I can't think of how a well balanced portfolio could drop to such an extent !
I can. We have a small, closed final salary scheme in a company that I am a director of. We have been paying about £600K a year into it for the last 6 years since it closed. The underlying investments have done well, beating the market. And yet the deficit has risen quite significantly.
Bond rates are at 300 year lows. Basically until bond rates increase putting more capital into a pension fund is like pouring water down a well. When interest rates increase there is a chance there will be too much money in the fund but it does not surprise me at all that the scheme has deteriorated so badly in recent years.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
So your vote is based on people you don't like and by a happy coincidence not trusting them coincides in the national interest in your view.
No problem with that except when you advance that argument why do you criticise those who may see the nitwits as the very organisations which steered us in to a massive recession ? The biggest exercise is value destruction in living memory.
If others see those people as the nitwits isn't it a tad hypocritical to criticise them for taking your own approach and seeing the national interest better represented by avoiding them ?
I don't recall Meeks backing Labour who steered us into a massive recession. Nor did the nation when given a chance to have them return to power
I have a few quid on him myself. He is the sort of smarmy git that gets support in the Conservative party, but the strike seems to be building in confidence with 80% of the juniors striking yesterday, and public support going up not down.
I see that Cameron publicly gave Hunt his full support yesterday, so a sacking cannot be far away...
I heard Farage rebut this story in an interview with Nick Robinson. I can't remember a politician who blusters quite as much.
What was that poll result again last night, it escapes me for the moment
To be serious for a moment. I wouldn't get too excited by those polls. Obama was never likely to be a quick hit. He's part of a slow burn undermining campaign which looks on track. Having heard Farage this morning rubbish Gove and as we move away from the knee jerk into questions of credibility Remain are likely to edge ahead
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
It's pretty pointless speculating further until the Pensions Regulator has had the chance to look at this properly.
I'll assume the pension scheme has legacy DB elements in it. With a company as large as BHS then the corridor accounting method should have been used (One would hope), and both the fair value of the assets, and the pension benefit obligation assessed at at least annually (And perhaps internally) quarterly reviews.
If the PBO is under the FV by over 10% then the loss to be amortized into the income statement.
My questions are:
Were the corridor or similiar rules followed ? Was the amortisation too lax ? Were the assets valued fairly at each period ? Did the actuaries/accountants all of a sudden notice that people were all ... living longer ?!
The extent of heading from £5 million surplus to ~ £500 million deficit seems extraordinary to me at a time when, unless it was all invested in oil the stock market has been relatively flat, property has at least stayed flat if not risen. I can't think of how a well balanced portfolio could drop to such an extent !
I can. We have a small, closed final salary scheme in a company that I am a director of. We have been paying about £600K a year into it for the last 6 years since it closed. The underlying investments have done well, beating the market. And yet the deficit has risen quite significantly.
Bond rates are at 300 year lows. Basically until bond rates increase putting more capital into a pension fund is like pouring water down a well. When interest rates increase there is a chance there will be too much money in the fund but it does not surprise me at all that the scheme has deteriorated so badly in recent years.
Deficits are valued at bond rates.
A decline in bond rates immediately opens a deficit regardless of present asset performance. The fund would be expected to significantly outperform this, and for course benefits when/if bond rates improve.
They shouldn't have fallen flat in a single year though. But that it probably the value of future income from the business.
Alot of fluff about Mr Green's yachts etc - not all that relevant to the substance of the pensions issue..
The 2009 plan for Arcadia's pension scheme looks to be skin of it's teeth to me. But ok in theory it should clear the deficit if things do not get any worse ! Its also starting to create a largish insolvency risk on the pension scheme with such a backloaded recovery plan.
So the plan I guess is "hmm maybe ok (legally) - but needs to be reassessed in 2010. Certainly by 2015 it is not enough.
I'd like to see the deficit figures for 2010 -> 2014.
The jump from 2015 -> 2016 looks extraordianry too - the only explanation I can think of is that BHS pension scheme was invested in itself or some such, the assets were BHS ! (I guess it is as a result of the future plan assets being the forthcoming payments from BHS itself - administration = All stopped)
I'm not familiar enough with large corporations and their rules to know if that is kosher but it looks to create a "double risk" on insolvency that investing in a basket of assets mitigates.
I heard Farage rebut this story in an interview with Nick Robinson. I can't remember a politician who blusters quite as much.
What was that poll result again last night, it escapes me for the moment
To be serious for a moment. I wouldn't get too excited by those polls. Obama was never likely to be a quick hit. He's part of a slow burn undermining campaign which looks on track. Having heard Farage this morning rubbish Gove and as we move away from the knee jerk into questions of credibility Remain will edge ahead
I think that's right but imo there's trading value in Leave right now.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
Morning all. Got a favour to ask, is there anyone on here who actually bets who'd be available to do a very short pre-recorded TV interview with me for Reuters tomorrow morning. ?It'd be in St James' in central London. They want to talk to a bookie and a punter about the EU Referendum.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
You are regressing back into pomposity and condescenion, Alastair.
Trust me: you really don't want to win the referendum, but lose the argument.
@Alanbrooke Vote Leave reach at point 1 of their rebuttal for a conspiracy theory. There's a difference between not liking someone and not trusting them with sharp implements.
In my view it's legitimate to point out that institutions in-and-of themselves have interests, as do those at the top of them, just as we do.
I don't think there's anything conspiratorial about that.
I have a few quid on him myself. He is the sort of smarmy git that gets support in the Conservative party, but the strike seems to be building in confidence with 80% of the juniors striking yesterday, and public support going up not down.
I see that Cameron publicly gave Hunt his full support yesterday, so a sacking cannot be far away...
It's curious that Cameron dumped the very able Gove because the teachers were getting antsy near the election, but appears to be hanging onto the smarmy but useless Hunt despite the doctors walking out, right on top of his premiership defining EURef.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
You are regressing back into pomposity and condescenion, Alastair.
Trust me: you really don't want to win the referendum, but lose the argument.
Actually he probably does.
He wants to win the referendum and then watch the Tories tear themselves apart with a disaffected party.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
The frother who complains about ad hominem attacks says he will vote Remain because the people on the other side are "nitwits". He is displaying the gross hypocrisy typical of Remainers.
I heard Farage rebut this story in an interview with Nick Robinson. I can't remember a politician who blusters quite as much.
What was that poll result again last night, it escapes me for the moment
To be serious for a moment. I wouldn't get too excited by those polls. Obama was never likely to be a quick hit. He's part of a slow burn undermining campaign which looks on track. Having heard Farage this morning rubbish Gove and as we move away from the knee jerk into questions of credibility Remain will edge ahead
Quite right Roger. In all my years of following polls, I've never witnessed one event that actually changed things overnight. (As I recall, even the enormity of Black Wednesday took a while to filter through.) As you sagaciously state, it's the chip, chip, chip that does it. Leave have now seemingly abandoned the economy for the murkier waters of immigration. We'll see how that plays out, but it was doubtless Obama's intervention that forced their hand.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
@Alanbrooke Of course the message isn't aimed at me. It's aimed at angry befuddled elderly men who are used to being led through hops over gaps in logic by the Daily Mail to be alternately outraged and frightened into bad decisions.
Can you please go on public record saying that on behalf of BSE please?
And that only makes sense if you don't trust the good sense of the British electorate.
If he trusted the British Electorate he wouldnt be ramping to have their country run by technocrats in Brussels rather than the politicians they elect. Its the standard Metro Elite mindset that the riff raff can't be trusted to know what is good for them and vote accordingly.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
Not just one. Christine Lagarde also lectured your hero, George Osborne, that he was flushing the UK economy down the toilet.
I have a few quid on him myself. He is the sort of smarmy git that gets support in the Conservative party, but the strike seems to be building in confidence with 80% of the juniors striking yesterday, and public support going up not down.
I see that Cameron publicly gave Hunt his full support yesterday, so a sacking cannot be far away...
The J Docs are holding out for more money in reality and their committee is basically a political outfit.
@Alanbrooke Of course the message isn't aimed at me. It's aimed at angry befuddled elderly men who are used to being led through hops over gaps in logic by the Daily Mail to be alternately outraged and frightened into bad decisions.
Can you please go on public record saying that on behalf of BSE please?
It would really be a great help.
#voteleavetakecontrol
He is probably just upset there hasn't been enough messages aimed at baldy metropolitan cranks.
@Casino_Royale I offer my open contempt of the Leave campaign and those who it is aimed at below the line on a blog and I have no official or unofficial capacity in the Remain campaign.
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
Not just one. Christine Lagarde also lectured your hero, George Osborne, that he was flushing the UK economy down the toilet.
I forget what happened next..
Indeed, we should remember to trust George and Dave when it to the economy (and everything else)
They are always right, just like they are in this referendum.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
@Casino_Royale I offer my open contempt of the Leave campaign and those who it is aimed at below the line on a blog and I have no official or unofficial capacity in the Remain campaign.
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
The amazing thing is Dave my forklift truck driver's vote count's just as much as yours.
@Casino_Royale I offer my open contempt of the Leave campaign and those who it is aimed at below the line on a blog and I have no official or unofficial capacity in the Remain campaign.
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
The amazing thing is Dave my forklift truck driver's vote count's just as much as yours.
This is all highly amusing. I only read Mr Meeks' contributions when others reply to him.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
Not just one. Christine Lagarde also lectured your hero, George Osborne, that he was flushing the UK economy down the toilet.
I forget what happened next..
Indeed, we should remember to trust George and Dave when it to the economy (and everything else)
They are always right, just like they are in this referendum.
Actually those two have probably destroyed the Conservative Party.
@Casino_Royale I offer my open contempt of the Leave campaign and those who it is aimed at below the line on a blog and I have no official or unofficial capacity in the Remain campaign.
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
The amazing thing is Dave my forklift truck driver's vote count's just as much as yours.
Trust he doffs his cap suitably deferentially and votes as instructed by his master.
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
Not just one. Christine Lagarde also lectured your hero, George Osborne, that he was flushing the UK economy down the toilet.
I forget what happened next..
Indeed, we should remember to trust George and Dave when it to the economy (and everything else)
They are always right, just like they are in this referendum.
Actually those two have probably destroyed the Conservative Party.
I'm sure UKIP's 102 MPs will be boosted in number after this referendum
I realise that many Leavers struggle with such points but to go back to basics, it's an ad hominem attack to attack someone who puts forward an argument rather than the argument itself. It's not an ad hominem attack to make an argument, even if you are fortunate enough to be highly regarded and with a long track record in the public eye.
The track record of the OECD is that they've forecast woe for the UK on at least two seminal decisions we've taken before (on both the ERM and the euro) and shown to be totally and utterly wrong on both occasions.
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
The IMF made Dominique Strauss-Kahn their managing director for almost 4 years.
Why should we trust their judgment?
Absolutely, a Frenchman lecturing us, on the economy. Have we sunk so low?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
Not just one. Christine Lagarde also lectured your hero, George Osborne, that he was flushing the UK economy down the toilet.
I forget what happened next..
Indeed, we should remember to trust George and Dave when it to the economy (and everything else)
They are always right, just like they are in this referendum.
Actually those two have probably destroyed the Conservative Party.
I'm sure UKIP's 102 MPs will be boosted in number after this referendum
Whatever you say about me in regards to UKIP doesn't alter the fact that, those two have probably destroyed the Conservative Party.
Well, no-one could possibly claim that voters haven't been fully warned about the economic risks of Brexit. If they choose to ignore them, then fair enough.
Alot of fluff about Mr Green's yachts etc - not all that relevant to the substance of the pensions issue..
The 2009 plan for Arcadia's pension scheme looks to be skin of it's teeth to me. But ok in theory it should clear the deficit if things do not get any worse ! Its also starting to create a largish insolvency risk on the pension scheme with such a backloaded recovery plan.
So the plan I guess is "hmm maybe ok (legally) - but needs to be reassessed in 2010. Certainly by 2015 it is not enough.
I'd like to see the deficit figures for 2010 -> 2014.
The jump from 2015 -> 2016 looks extraordianry too - the only explanation I can think of is that BHS pension scheme was invested in itself or some such, the assets were BHS ! (I guess it is as a result of the future plan assets being the forthcoming payments from BHS itself - administration = All stopped)
I'm not familiar enough with large corporations and their rules to know if that is kosher but it looks to create a "double risk" on insolvency that investing in a basket of assets mitigates.
I think, by law, pension fund assets are valued as both "going concern" and "liquidation or sale".
The deficit as "going concern" represents what the employer would need to inject to balance the assets with the NPV of the anticipated outgoings. The deficit as "liquidation" is the value placed on the assets by another pension fund provider buying the assets.
The liquidation value will always be lower than the going concern value to represent the risk and required return of the acquirer.
Perhaps that is the explanation of the sharp difference? I haven't studied the small print so I'm guessing.
The feature race yesterday went from an 8 horse with a heavy odds on favorite (Vautour) to a 7 horse (The absolute worst for E/W punters) with the favourite being turned over and the second favourite not placing.
An absolute tar pit for anyone who punted into the race. I was considering a punt on Special Tiara, but am glad I swerved it.
Looks like the Ruby Ricci Mullins Tar pit for ante-post punters continues - unless AP is injured which could be the case.
Anyone backing any of:
Douvan @ 5-4 QMCC, Annie Power @ 2, Vroum Vroum Mag @ 5 (Mares) Vautour @ 4 (Ryanair) Annie Power @ 7 (World Hurdle) Vautour @ 8, Douvan @ 16 (Gold cup) for 2017 Cheltenham probably ought to be sectioned/shot.
In addition all those races are pretty much unbackable for correct prices given ante-post uncertainty and the fact Mullins horses are in them they could be a substantial % of the market.
@Alanbrooke Of course the message isn't aimed at me. It's aimed at angry befuddled elderly men who are used to being led through hops over gaps in logic by the Daily Mail to be alternately outraged and frightened into bad decisions.
How exactly are you different from "angry befuddled elderly men who are used to being led through hoops over gaps in logic"?
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
You are regressing back into pomposity and condescenion, Alastair.
Trust me: you really don't want to win the referendum, but lose the argument.
You people have cast aside your true conservative values in the sycophantic defence of one man, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
No. We believe we are doing the right thing for our country and our families.
That you cannot see that will leave you a spectacularly unpersuasive persuader of others.
Good.
Always nice to get a reaction.
I'm not here to persuade anybody, virtually nobody reads this site, its nothing more than a fun way to pass the time. My observation is about the direction Cameron has led the Conservative Party - to a state where you are supporting Umunna against Hannan. It is a perfect example of unthinking tribalism.
You don't support Remain, you can't make a single positive case, you support Cameron because he won a majority. Your prerogative, mine is to poke fun.
I have a few quid on him myself. He is the sort of smarmy git that gets support in the Conservative party, but the strike seems to be building in confidence with 80% of the juniors striking yesterday, and public support going up not down.
I see that Cameron publicly gave Hunt his full support yesterday, so a sacking cannot be far away...
The J Docs are holding out for more money in reality and their committee is basically a political outfit.
When 80% are out on strike, then it is not a few activists driving the strike. It has a massive mandate.
The juniors do not want a pay rise. They would be happy for the contract to be withdrawn for renegotiation and stay on current rates in the meantime.
Hunt says that Saturday pay is the only issue, but the BMA has a list of other issues that are unresolved. Mark Porter listed these on Monday.
I heard Farage rebut this story in an interview with Nick Robinson. I can't remember a politician who blusters quite as much.
What was that poll result again last night, it escapes me for the moment
To be serious for a moment. I wouldn't get too excited by those polls. Obama was never likely to be a quick hit. He's part of a slow burn undermining campaign which looks on track. Having heard Farage this morning rubbish Gove and as we move away from the knee jerk into questions of credibility Remain are likely to edge ahead
[to Carlotta] My observation is about the direction Cameron has led the Conservative Party - to a state where you are supporting Umunna against Hannan. It is a perfect example of unthinking tribalism.
Glorious! A Conservative agreeing with a Labour MP on a specific issue, and disagreeing with a Conservative, is 'a perfect example of unthinking tribalism'.
Ex European Commissioner and Chairman of the BBC Trust says BBC to pro-BrExit, well knock me down with a feather.
I am sure it is complete coincidence that Oxford Uni (of which he is Chancellor, and got a 200m loan from the EBI with undisclosed terms) also came out for BrExit yesterday.
I don't want to sound like I work for Oxfam or any of the other parasitic charities so despised on this site but doesn't anyone find this troubling? (From the Guardian)
"Tina, who since 2004 has been the legal owner of BHS – and the Arcadia Group, which includes Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins – is based in Monaco. The handover of BHS to Green’s wife was completed just before the family paid themselves £1.2bn in dividends from Arcadia in 2005, the biggest pay cheque in British corporate history, equivalent to four times the group’s then profits."
You do realise the law only permits dividends from accrued, post tax profits? They don't have to be this year's profits but they need to be accrued profits.
So if you make the same profit every year and defer your profits for five years then take 80% of them that'd be four times that years profit but entirely legal and in my view morally acceptable too.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
I see SeanF's favourite Brian Coleman has rushed out a tweet disparaging the Hillsborough verdict. The school of Trump in public utterances.
New Opinium survey in the works on referendum, Cameron vs Corbyn, VI and doctors' strike. You have to read the referendum questions carefully as Remain/Leave and positive/negative get swapped around, so it's easy to support the exact opposite to your views by mistake.
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
I think that may make people excessively deferential when trying to produce balance.
You have the governor of the Bank of England on, or the IMF chief, so you feel obliged to put up some Conservative backbencher that nobody has ever heard of on the other side of the argument.
Compared to the star-studded myriad of revered Remainers, Leave's personnel is a bit thin on the ground. Don't get be wrong, I loved Ian Botham with both bat and ball, but you can't keep putting him forward to inform the masses on the decision of the century. Leave need to get their big hitters out. Where's Michael Caine been recently? Personally I preferred him in Alfie, but one can't deny that a bit of Hollywood sparkle is exuded by the man.
I see SeanF's favourite Brian Coleman has rushed out a tweet disparaging the Hillsborough verdict. The school of Trump in public utterances.
New Opinium survey in the works on referendum, Cameron vs Corbyn, VI and doctors' strike. You have to read the referendum questions carefully as Remain/Leave and positive/negative get swapped around, so it's easy to support the exact opposite to your views by mistake.
Did you get which of the seven dwarves the EU is question ?
There's some real idiocy re Hillsborough, even the Nats' fave, Wings over Somerset has been showing his idiocy on this topic again.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
Not to mention is EU Pension is at risk if he says anything naughty about the EU, just like Mandy
Can you imagine working for say Tesco's and it being a condition of your pension that you can't say anything critical about the company for ever more ?
George Osborne has no need to worry either way .... Should REMAIN win then presumably the economy will bounce back sharply immediately after the referendum. Should LEAVE win however, then he'll be out of a job PDQ and therefore no longer responsible for the stewardship of the UK economy.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
That can happen irrespective of the result of the referendum.
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
It's actually quite frightening - very reminiscent of the attacks we've seen recently on media balance (or the attempt to appear balanced) on climate change. The blob doesn't like to be contradicted, and it's continually pushing the boundaries to try and de-legitimise dissent.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
That can happen irrespective of the result of the referendum.
Yes, but a Leave win makes it's almost certain (though I think he'd resign rather than wait for a challenge).
It's like how the US hates "socialism". It's just what connotations the word carries.
Bernie seems to be managing okay, though I guess we'll never see how his 'socialism' would go down with the wider electorate.
If losing his own parties nomination let alone the wider public vote is ok ...
He's doing better in his primaries than extreme conservative Cruz & moderate conservative Kasich are in theirs. Afaicr he's also outpolling all the GOP candidates in head-to-head POTUS polls. If losing out to Socialist Bern is ok...
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
It's actually quite frightening - very reminiscent of the attacks we've seen recently on media balance (or the attempt to appear balanced) on climate change. The blob doesn't like to be contradicted, and it's continually pushing the boundaries to try and de-legitimise dissent.
I had to resort to watching RT to see anything on Climategate - the BBC's Roger Harrabin was in total control and refused to cover it at all for weeks, he's now running his own greenies business IIRC.
Re the "conspiracy theory" that the OECD is in cahoots with the EU; from the OECD website
"In the Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the OECD of 14 December 1960, the signatories to the Convention agreed that the European Commission shall take part in the work of the OECD.
European Commission representatives participate alongside Members in discussions on the OECD’s work programme, and are involved in the work of the entire Organisation and its different bodies. "
[to Carlotta] My observation is about the direction Cameron has led the Conservative Party - to a state where you are supporting Umunna against Hannan. It is a perfect example of unthinking tribalism.
Glorious! A Conservative agreeing with a Labour MP on a specific issue, and disagreeing with a Conservative, is 'a perfect example of unthinking tribalism'.
Bravo! More please!
Perhaps you can list the parts of what Umunna said that you agree with and what Dan said that you disagree with.
An independent thinker such as yourself will have little trouble with that.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
Why am I being ridiculous?
Cameron was asked by Carswell in parliament. Now if his party decide they no longer want him that will be a democratic process. That's the problem with democracy, nitwits sometimes win.
I see SeanF's favourite Brian Coleman has rushed out a tweet disparaging the Hillsborough verdict. The school of Trump in public utterances.
New Opinium survey in the works on referendum, Cameron vs Corbyn, VI and doctors' strike. You have to read the referendum questions carefully as Remain/Leave and positive/negative get swapped around, so it's easy to support the exact opposite to your views by mistake.
Did you get which of the seven dwarves the EU is question ?
There's some real idiocy re Hillsborough, even the Nats' fave, Wings over Somerset has been showing his idiocy on this topic again.
Despite being an avid Wings reader and having many of my funniest quips been retweeted by him I have now been blocked for trying to politely engage with him on the issue.
@Casino_Royale I offer my open contempt of the Leave campaign and those who it is aimed at below the line on a blog and I have no official or unofficial capacity in the Remain campaign.
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
Why am I being ridiculous?
Cameron was asked by Carswell in parliament. Now if his party decide they no longer want him that will be a democratic process. That's the problem with democracy, nitwits sometimes win.
It's naive to take Cameron's answer to Carswell at face value. He gave the only answer he could (and the one Carswell expected). In reality his position will be untenable if he loses the referendum.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
That can happen irrespective of the result of the referendum.
Yes, but a Leave win makes it's almost certain (though I think he'd resign rather than wait for a challenge).
Gosh, if we vote to leave we will get rid of Cameron and Osborne and the EU off our backs and maybe Scotland will vote to go as well, What is not to like about that? Forget all the, rather spurious, arguments about trade, there is the clincher argument for Leave right there.
Watching some of the wealthy elitists trying coming to to terms with the fact that the UK would once again be a self-governing country would just be the icing on the cake.
Dave and George must be frustrated to hell right now. They're scared they'll lose but even more so they thought they'd win themselves a place in history and their party. A positive one. I think they've both sunk themselves.
I see SeanF's favourite Brian Coleman has rushed out a tweet disparaging the Hillsborough verdict. The school of Trump in public utterances.
New Opinium survey in the works on referendum, Cameron vs Corbyn, VI and doctors' strike. You have to read the referendum questions carefully as Remain/Leave and positive/negative get swapped around, so it's easy to support the exact opposite to your views by mistake.
Did you get which of the seven dwarves the EU is question ?
There's some real idiocy re Hillsborough, even the Nats' fave, Wings over Somerset has been showing his idiocy on this topic again.
Despite being an avid Wings reader and having many of my funniest quips been retweeted by him I have now been blocked for trying to politely engage with him on the issue.
Like a lot of people, he can't admit he's wrong, even when the facts are staring him in the face.
But he knows better than the jury that sat through two years' worth of evidence.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Only someone obscenely rich could utter those words. It says it all in the last sentence. Can you explain how he could give his wife over £400M dividend and have £500M deficit in the pension scheme. How does that seem real if you take your silver spoon out.
Easy.
One was 12 years ago when the company was profitable...
The second is after 9 years of 0% interest rates which has destroyed any company with a defined benefits pension scheme. The one thing Gordon Brown successfully did for most people was destroy their pension....
It is still unbelievable that you can take £400M out of a company , leaving the pension scheme almost bankrupt. They know that taxpayers will have to take up the slack, in any normal transaction in the real world that would be a crime. How that is legal and they are not forced to payback the money is a disgrace , but I would not expect the Tories to do anything about it other than dole out a few gongs.
They are utterly separate actions,
1 Money is taken out of the company. Then 5 or so years later.... 2 The pension fund needs money to meet defined benefits that it really should have redefined years ago...
The thing is that the money wasn't taken out at a time when the pension fund was a problem or even perceived to be a forthcoming problem. Back when the money was taken out I bet the pension fund was £300m or so in credit (as many were before interest rates hit the floor)...
While I also find it annoying that if the money hadn't been pulled out bhs probably would be in a far better state, my inkling is that it actually wouldn't be. The issue here is that with 0% interest rates plans that were based on inflation suddenly become problems.
My inkling is that Frank Field is going to make a fool of himself when he starts asking questions as Philip Green will be utterly prepared with an actuary's explanation to hand...
No matter how you look at it , him removing billions and the pension fund having 600M left to taxpayers is wrong. You can polish it any way you like with some high paid spiv but it should be a criminal offence. How these people sleep at night escapes me.
@Alanbrooke My vote is cast not on the basis that the argument put forward by Leave is discredited by those advocating it, but on the basis that one should cast one's vote on the basis of what is in the best interests of the country.
I shall be voting for what I consider will be in the best interests of the country. It is not in the best interests of the country to trust its governance to nitwits. That rules out trusting Leave.
There you go again, repeating the same nonsense.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course Cameron's job is on the line. You are aware there's a mechanism to remove him without his consent?
Why am I being ridiculous?
Cameron was asked by Carswell in parliament. Now if his party decide they no longer want him that will be a democratic process. That's the problem with democracy, nitwits sometimes win.
It's naive to take Cameron's answer to Carswell at face value. He gave the only answer he could (and the one Carswell expected). In reality his position will be untenable if he loses the referendum.
To consider the alternate point of view...
If the result is Leave, MPs will be conciliatory to him, and ask him to stay for a while, as long as a key Leaver negotiates the exit. Cameron will be standing down anyway so why not let this take its course?
If the result is Remain, there will be a lot of bad feeling that Cameron has cheated the referendum (given all his actions over it), and we are more likely to see pressure to see him step aside.
Given the vast lack of scrutiny the BBC gave to the errors in the Treasury report, it is crazy to claim the BBC is biased in an anti-EU direction. Chris Patten's view is being vastly obscured by his raging Europhilia.
It's actually quite frightening - very reminiscent of the attacks we've seen recently on media balance (or the attempt to appear balanced) on climate change. The blob doesn't like to be contradicted, and it's continually pushing the boundaries to try and de-legitimise dissent.
Criticism of the BBC for attempting to create a false balance of views with regard to climate change is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus for anthropogenic climate change, there is no justification for giving a platform to those who deny it for political reasons. We don't expect to hear the views of creation scientists every time geology is discussed.
Dave and George must be frustrated to hell right now. They're scared they'll lose but even more so they thought they'd win themselves a place in history and their party. A positive one. I think they've both sunk themselves.
I'm not seeing any love for Cameron anywhere bar a couple on here. It's dismal for him - and accelerating towards Blair's legacy. Incredible collapse in his fortunes.
Comments
Reminds me of the Yes Minister about the most efficient hospital - newly built but with no medical staff & no patients just admin staff.
It still doesn't hold water though: it's only logically consistent if you think a Leave vote makes these people you dislike more likely to be elected than a Remain vote does.
And that only makes sense if you don't trust the good sense of the British electorate.
Bond rates are at 300 year lows. Basically until bond rates increase putting more capital into a pension fund is like pouring water down a well. When interest rates increase there is a chance there will be too much money in the fund but it does not surprise me at all that the scheme has deteriorated so badly in recent years.
I see that Cameron publicly gave Hunt his full support yesterday, so a sacking cannot be far away...
Why should we listen to them this time, particularly when the British national interest is not their main interest?
Personally I think Remain will clinch this but appeals to the authority of the IMF, OECD, World Bank, WTO, EU or any established institution that has no interest in disrupting the status quo isn't going to shift many votes, IMHO.
It's like Mitt Romney making the case against Trump.
A decline in bond rates immediately opens a deficit regardless of present asset performance. The fund would be expected to significantly outperform this, and for course benefits when/if bond rates improve.
They shouldn't have fallen flat in a single year though. But that it probably the value of future income from the business.
Alot of fluff about Mr Green's yachts etc - not all that relevant to the substance of the pensions issue..
The 2009 plan for Arcadia's pension scheme looks to be skin of it's teeth to me. But ok in theory it should clear the deficit if things do not get any worse ! Its also starting to create a largish insolvency risk on the pension scheme with such a backloaded recovery plan.
So the plan I guess is "hmm maybe ok (legally) - but needs to be reassessed in 2010. Certainly by 2015 it is not enough.
I'd like to see the deficit figures for 2010 -> 2014.
The jump from 2015 -> 2016 looks extraordianry too - the only explanation I can think of is that BHS pension scheme was invested in itself or some such, the assets were BHS !
(I guess it is as a result of the future plan assets being the forthcoming payments from BHS itself - administration = All stopped)
I'm not familiar enough with large corporations and their rules to know if that is kosher but it looks to create a "double risk" on insolvency that investing in a basket of assets mitigates.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies to many of these "appeal to authority" arguments from Remain.
Got a favour to ask, is there anyone on here who actually bets who'd be available to do a very short pre-recorded TV interview with me for Reuters tomorrow morning. ?It'd be in St James' in central London.
They want to talk to a bookie and a punter about the EU Referendum.
Trust me: you really don't want to win the referendum, but lose the argument.
I don't think there's anything conspiratorial about that.
He wants to win the referendum and then watch the Tories tear themselves apart with a disaffected party.
Why should we trust their judgment?
I wonder if DSK has ever met John Whittingdale?
It would really be a great help.
#voteleavetakecontrol
I forget what happened next..
Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, peddles conspiracy theories on its official twitter feed.
But you're happy to be led by the nose by conspiracy theorists.
They are always right, just like they are in this referendum.
http://monongaliacountyclerk.com/myfiles/elections/2016elections/sampleballots/primary/SampleBallot-Republican16P.pdf
Executive summary - If your surname is at the end of the alphabet then you're probably not making it as a Trump delegate.
Shameful I know.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/725254356640096257
BBC 'excessively deferential' to pro-Brexit case, says Lord Patten
Tory former BBC chairman says corporation sometimes goes too far to show balance because John Whittingdale’s shadow ‘hangs over it’
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/bbc-brexit-case-lord-patten-john-whittingdale?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email
http://order-order.com/2016/04/27/naz-shah-employed-zio-hater-as-taxpayer-funded-aide/
Paging Mr Corbyn...... when will you act??????
The deficit as "going concern" represents what the employer would need to inject to balance the assets with the NPV of the anticipated outgoings. The deficit as "liquidation" is the value placed on the assets by another pension fund provider buying the assets.
The liquidation value will always be lower than the going concern value to represent the risk and required return of the acquirer.
Perhaps that is the explanation of the sharp difference? I haven't studied the small print so I'm guessing.
An absolute tar pit for anyone who punted into the race. I was considering a punt on Special Tiara, but am glad I swerved it.
Looks like the Ruby Ricci Mullins Tar pit for ante-post punters continues - unless AP is injured which could be the case.
Anyone backing any of:
Douvan @ 5-4 QMCC,
Annie Power @ 2, Vroum Vroum Mag @ 5 (Mares)
Vautour @ 4 (Ryanair)
Annie Power @ 7 (World Hurdle)
Vautour @ 8, Douvan @ 16 (Gold cup) for 2017 Cheltenham probably ought to be sectioned/shot.
In addition all those races are pretty much unbackable for correct prices given ante-post uncertainty and the fact Mullins horses are in them they could be a substantial % of the market.
I'm not here to persuade anybody, virtually nobody reads this site, its nothing more than a fun way to pass the time. My observation is about the direction Cameron has led the Conservative Party - to a state where you are supporting Umunna against Hannan. It is a perfect example of unthinking tribalism.
You don't support Remain, you can't make a single positive case, you support Cameron because he won a majority. Your prerogative, mine is to poke fun.
The juniors do not want a pay rise. They would be happy for the contract to be withdrawn for renegotiation and stay on current rates in the meantime.
Hunt says that Saturday pay is the only issue, but the BMA has a list of other issues that are unresolved. Mark Porter listed these on Monday.
The only question is whether he needs to buy enough to get through to 2020 or just the end of this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36111742
Not sure OGH will be buying one....
Bravo! More please!
Ex European Commissioner and Chairman of the BBC Trust says BBC to pro-BrExit, well knock me down with a feather.
I am sure it is complete coincidence that Oxford Uni (of which he is Chancellor, and got a 200m loan from the EBI with undisclosed terms) also came out for BrExit yesterday.
So if you make the same profit every year and defer your profits for five years then take 80% of them that'd be four times that years profit but entirely legal and in my view morally acceptable too.
On June 24th Cameron will be PM regardless of the outcome and he said in parliament he wouldn't be standing down. Perhaps he's one of the nitwits you refer to.
New Opinium survey in the works on referendum, Cameron vs Corbyn, VI and doctors' strike. You have to read the referendum questions carefully as Remain/Leave and positive/negative get swapped around, so it's easy to support the exact opposite to your views by mistake.
I think that may make people excessively deferential when trying to produce balance.
You have the governor of the Bank of England on, or the IMF chief, so you feel obliged to put up some Conservative backbencher that nobody has ever heard of on the other side of the argument.
Compared to the star-studded myriad of revered Remainers, Leave's personnel is a bit thin on the ground. Don't get be wrong, I loved Ian Botham with both bat and ball, but you can't keep putting him forward to inform the masses on the decision of the century. Leave need to get their big hitters out. Where's Michael Caine been recently? Personally I preferred him in Alfie, but one can't deny that a bit of Hollywood sparkle is exuded by the man.
There's some real idiocy re Hillsborough, even the Nats' fave, Wings over Somerset has been showing his idiocy on this topic again.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/union-cash-reform-delayed-for-eu-votes-75mb0lq2q
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4996440/Lord-Mandelson-must-remain-loyal-to-EU-to-guarantee-pension.html
Can you imagine working for say Tesco's and it being a condition of your pension that you can't say anything critical about the company for ever more ?
If losing out to Socialist Bern is ok...
"In the Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the OECD of 14 December 1960, the signatories to the Convention agreed that the European Commission shall take part in the work of the OECD.
European Commission representatives participate alongside Members in discussions on the OECD’s work programme, and are involved in the work of the entire Organisation and its different bodies. "
http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
An independent thinker such as yourself will have little trouble with that.
Cameron was asked by Carswell in parliament. Now if his party decide they no longer want him that will be a democratic process. That's the problem with democracy, nitwits sometimes win.
Watching some of the wealthy elitists trying coming to to terms with the fact that the UK would once again be a self-governing country would just be the icing on the cake.
But he knows better than the jury that sat through two years' worth of evidence.
To consider the alternate point of view...
If the result is Leave, MPs will be conciliatory to him, and ask him to stay for a while, as long as a key Leaver negotiates the exit. Cameron will be standing down anyway so why not let this take its course?
If the result is Remain, there will be a lot of bad feeling that Cameron has cheated the referendum (given all his actions over it), and we are more likely to see pressure to see him step aside.